5. ZONING - HAZELDEAN PUMP STATION
HOLDING ZONE Zonage - zone d'aménagement
différé de la station de pompage HAZELDEAN |
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council approve:
1.
An
amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of properties within
the Hazeldean Pump Station Sewershed such that a holding zone (h) is added to
the existing zones, as illustrated in Documents 5 to 13 and detailed in
Document 14.
2.
That staff proceed with application for
Certificate of Approval in accordance with the 1999 Region of Ottawa-Carleton
Hazeldean Sewage Pumping Station Capacity Expansion Schedule B – Class
Environmental Assessment to increase the capacity of the HPS to 1077 l/s.
3.
That, consistent with existing delegated
authority, the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management be directed to
list by-laws providing for the lifting of the ‘h’ on a case by case basis upon
confirmation that capacity is available.
4.
That the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management be given authorization to waive the planning fees, identified in the
Planning Fee By-law (2010-110), for a ‘Lifting Holding By-law’ application
related to the subject ‘h’.
5.
That the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management be directed to list a by-law for the lifting of the ‘h’ related to
sanitary sewer capacity off of all properties once the Certificate of Approval
for the Schedule A+ project to bring capacity to 1225 l/s has been issued and
the Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment for the project to bring capacity
to 1400 l/s is complete.
RECOMMENDATIONS DU COMITÉ
Que le
Conseil :
1.
approuve une modification du Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de
changer le zonage des propriétés à l'intérieur de l'aire desservie par le
réseau d’égout de la station de pompage Hazeldean en ajoutant une zone
d'aménagement différé (‘h’) aux désignations de zonage existantes, tel que le montrent les
documents 5 à 13 et que le décrit en détail le document 14;
2.
demande au personnel de présenter
une demande de certificat d'approbation de l'augmentation à 1 077 l/s
de la capacité de la station de pompage
Hazeldean, conformément à l'évaluation environnementale de portée
générale, annexe B, effectuée par la Région d'Ottawa-Carleton en 1999
relativement à l'augmentation de capacité de la station de pompage Hazeldean;
3.
prescrit, conformément à la
délégation de pouvoirs existante, au directeur général, Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance, d'établir le texte de règlements municipaux prévoyant la levée
de la restriction ‘h’ au cas par cas, une fois confirmée que la capacité voulue
est disponible;
4.
autorise le directeur général,
Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, à dispenser des droits d'aménagement,
fixés par le Règlement municipal 2010-110, les demandes de levée de la zone d'aménagement différé relatives à la restriction
‘h’ en question;
5.
prescrit au directeur général,
Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, d'établir le texte d'un règlement
municipal prévoyant la levée de la restriction ‘h’, liée à la capacité de
l'égout sanitaire, de toutes les propriétés une fois délivré le certificat
d'approbation du projet d'annexe A+ de porter la capacité à 1 225 l/s
et achevée l'évaluation environnementale de portée générale, annexe B, en vue
de porter la capacité à 1 400 l/s.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability, dated 4 June 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0108).
2.
Extract of Minutes dated 22 June 2010.
Report to/Rapport au:
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme
et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : Michael Wildman, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development
Review-Suburban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services suburbains,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613)
580-2424, 27811 Mike.Wildman@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
ZONING
- hazeldean pump station holding zone (FILE NO. D02-02-10-0032) |
|
|
OBJET : |
Zonage - zone d'aménagement différé de la
station de pompage HAZELDEAN |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve:
1.
An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to
change the zoning of properties within the Hazeldean Pump Station Sewershed such
that a holding zone (h) is added to the existing zones, as illustrated in
Documents 5 to 13 and detailed in Document 14.
2.
That staff
proceed with application for Certificate of Approval in accordance with the
1999 Region of Ottawa-Carleton Hazeldean Sewage Pumping Station Capacity
Expansion Schedule B – Class Environmental Assessment to increase the capacity
of the HPS to 1077 l/s.
3.
That,
consistent with existing delegated authority, the General Manager, Planning and
Growth Management be directed to list by-laws providing for the lifting of the ‘h’
on a case by case basis upon confirmation that capacity is available.
4.
That the
General Manager, Planning and Growth Management be given authorization to waive
the planning fees, identified in the Planning Fee By-law (2010-110), for a
‘Lifting Holding By-law’ application related to the subject ‘h’.
5.
That the
General Manager, Planning and Growth Management be directed to list a by-law
for the lifting of the ‘h’ related to sanitary sewer capacity off of all
properties once the Certificate of Approval for the Schedule A+ project to
bring capacity to 1225 l/s has been issued and the Schedule B Class Environmental
Assessment for the project to bring capacity to 1400 l/s is complete.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement recommande au Conseil :
1.
d'approuver une modification du Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de
changer le zonage des propriétés à l'intérieur de l'aire desservie par le
réseau d’égout de la station de pompage Hazeldean en ajoutant une zone
d'aménagement différé (‘h’) aux désignations de zonage existantes, tel que le montrent les
documents 5 à 13 et que le décrit en détail le document 14;
2.
de demander au personnel de
présenter une demande de certificat d'approbation de l'augmentation à
1 077 l/s de la capacité de la station de pompage Hazeldean, conformément à l'évaluation
environnementale de portée générale, annexe B, effectuée par la Région
d'Ottawa-Carleton en 1999 relativement à l'augmentation de capacité de la station de pompage Hazeldean;
3.
de prescrire, conformément à la
délégation de pouvoirs existante, au directeur général, Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance, d'établir le texte de règlements municipaux prévoyant la levée
de la restriction ‘h’ au cas par cas, une fois confirmée que la capacité voulue
est disponible;
4.
d'autoriser le directeur général,
Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, à dispenser des droits d'aménagement,
fixés par le Règlement municipal 2010-110, les demandes de levée de la zone d'aménagement différé relatives à la restriction
‘h’ en question;
5.
de prescrire au directeur général,
Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, d'établir le texte d'un règlement
municipal prévoyant la levée de la restriction ‘h’, liée à la capacité de
l'égout sanitaire, de toutes les propriétés une fois délivré le certificat
d'approbation du projet d'annexe A+ de porter la capacité à 1 225 l/s
et achevée l'évaluation environnementale de portée générale, annexe B, en vue
de porter la capacité à 1 400 l/s.
The Hazeldean Pump Station (HPS) is a sanitary sewage pump station located in the City’s west end at 415 Michael Cowpland Drive. The drainage area tributary to the HPS is generally described as Wards 6 (Stittsville) and 23 (Kanata South) with the exceptions of lands immediately surrounding Scotiabank Place, the Terry Fox Business Park, the Kanata Town Centre south of Highway 417 and portions of the Katimavik-Hazeldean neighbourhood east of Castlefrank Road (see Document 1). In 2008, the City determined that an upgrade was needed to the HPS in 2011 to 2012 in order to keep pace with projected growth demands. The HPS is currently estimated to have approximately two years of residual capacity available to accommodate growth pressures. In order to manage growth in relation to available residual capacity within the HPS, this report recommends that a holding zone (h) be placed over certain developable lands which are tributary to the HPS. The ‘h’ would be lifted as capacity necessary to accommodate future growth pressures is confirmed.
The purpose of this Zoning By-law Amendment is to apply a ‘holding zone’ on the properties shown on the attached location maps to manage growth with respect to available capacity and until such time that capacity at the Hazeldean Pump Station can be demonstrated (either through identification of additional flow through the design of the pump station or through an upgrade to the pump station to create additional flow). The lands identified on Documents 2 and 3 are primarily vacant properties with development potential, or developed lands having redevelopment potential.
The Provincial Policy Statement speaks to providing infrastructure in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. In keeping with this policy direction, the City has undertaken monitoring of the Hazeldean Pumping Station. It was determined, based on projected growth, that an upgrade to the HPS would be necessary in approximately 2011-2012. Currently, sanitary flows in the HPS are below the rated capacity of the HPS; however, during the July 2009 rain event peak flows exceeded the rated capacity due to storm flows entering the sanitary system. It is estimated that, based upon historical consumption of capacity, there remains approximately two years of the residual capacity within the HPS. There are planning applications having an advanced status which are predicted to utilize over half of the two years’ capacity. The City has already initiated the necessary Environmental Assessment in order to affect upgrades to the HPS. Acquiring provincial approvals could be delayed, as such it is considered prudent to implement a ‘holding zone’ over lands which are tributary to the HPS in order that the City can manage growth responsibly in relation to available capacity within the HPS, and to flag to property owners that future development requiring approval under the Planning Act may be put on hold where warranted until capacity is considered available within the HPS.
As noted, the City is actively
engaged in working towards upgrades to the HPS, and the City will remove the
“holding zone” on a case-by-case basis as capacity is confirmed. Furthermore, the ‘h’ will be removed in its
entirety once the Schedule B upgrade to 1400 l/s has been completed.
Existing Zoning
The existing zoning of the subject sites vary and include a broad range of residential zones, mixed-use commercial zones, industrial zones and development reserve zones.
Proposed Zoning
The proposed holding zone will be created by adding a
lower-case ‘h’ to the existing zone code of each property on the zoning maps
with associated conditions for removal.
The ‘h’ will have the effect of allowing the uses set out in the
corresponding text of the by-law at some time in the future when the holding
symbol is removed. Until the specified
conditions are met the ‘h’ will permit those uses existing at the time of
enactment of this by-law to continue with no adverse impacts.
Where a holding symbol has been added to the zone code of the property
(Documents 5 to 13) all permitted uses are prohibited until the holding
symbol is removed, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any development that does not result in increased sanitary sewer flows to the Hazeldean Pumping Station.
DISCUSSION
In keeping with growth management policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the City’s Official Plan, the City’s Infrastructure Master Plan and City Council’s Strategic Plan, the City monitors growth rates such that requisite supporting infrastructure is delivered as needed in a financially sustainable way.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and promotes the provincial planning system.
Section 1.6.1, within the Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities Section of the PPS speaks to the provision of infrastructure and public service such that it is coordinated in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Subsequently, the PPS requires the planning for sewage services which direct and accommodate expected growth in a manner that promotes efficient use of existing municipal sewage services.
Municipalities are to ensure these systems are provided in a manner that integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process.
Official Plan
The Official Plan provides a vision of the future growth of the City and a policy framework to guide its physical development to the year 2021. The Plan serves as a basis for, or provides guidance on, a wide range of municipal activities and it addresses matters of provincial interest defined by the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act.
The Official Plan provides the basis for the planning and approval of infrastructure services to be carried out by the City in support of future growth. In particular Section 4.4.1 of the Official Plan (Servicing in Public Service Area) expands upon the Provincial Policy Statements interests in Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities by identifying and outlining the policies the City uses to review development applications in order to ensure infrastructure is coordinated in a manner to support orderly growth. The City requires development applications in Public Service Areas to be supported by an assessment of adequacy of public services. Where services are found to be limited, proponents are required to demonstrate how public services will be provided to support development.
Infrastructure Master Plan
The Infrastructure Master Plan provides strategic directions and an integrated infrastructure planning and policy framework which will direct the City's continuing efforts to maximize value, including the role infrastructure plays in protecting the natural environment. To this effect, the three strategic directions identified are:
1) Understand Growth Impacts on Infrastructure
2) Cost and Value; and
3) Integrate Infrastructure Planning
With respect to the first strategic direction, it has been identified that the City will predict and monitor the impacts of population and employment growth on infrastructure in order to ensure that infrastructure and services are delivered on time to support orderly growth.
Council’s Strategic Plan
A new City Strategic Plan is created every four years to coincide with the new term of Council. To start the process in 2007, Council undertook an ambitious strategic planning exercise to establish priorities for their term, taking into account the City’s ability to pay for them. The outcome was a Strategic Directions Report that listed six service priorities and three transformation priorities to form the basis of the 2007-2010 City Strategic Plan. Council’s transformation priorities are: governance, service delivery, and sustainable finances. Council’s service priorities are: transportation; transit; infrastructure renewal; solid waste and environment; sustainable, healthy and active city; and, planning and growth management.
Specifically, the service priority pertaining to planning and growth management speaks to ensuring that City infrastructure required for new growth is built and improved as needed to service the growth.
Servicing Issues
In 1999, the Region of Ottawa-Carleton completed a Schedule B Environmental Assessment (EA) which provided for up to 1077 litres per second (l/s) to be pumped at the HPS. The current Ministry of Environment (MOE) Certificate of Approval for the HPS establishes a rated capacity of 1000 l/s. As of February 5, 2010, existing flows at the HPS of 921 l/s have been assessed based upon detailed monitoring combined with modeled projections. Historical absorption rates of sanitary sewage are approximately 44 l/s/year. Therefore, there currently is approximately two years of residual capacity remaining in the HPS (Document 4). In March 2010, the MOE advised that, from an Environmental Assessment point of view, proceeding with an upgrade to the 1999 EA upset capacity of 1077 l/s is supportable subject to technical review and approval. Such an upgrade would not require construction of additional works, but would require changes in the operating parameters of the HPS. If approved by the Ministry of Environment, the upgrade would provide additional capacity which could add an additional 18 months to two years of capacity in addition to the existing residual capacity available and would result in a greater buffer within the HPS.
There are active planning applications of an advanced status for which capacity has been allocated at the HPS, thereby allowing these sites to proceed to construction; these applications are described as “allocated flows” (Document 14). The total allocated flows, should they all proceed, would result in total flows at the HPS of 988 l/s. There are other lands tributary to the HPS which have some form or another of planning status, and which wish to proceed to construction. The City has not supported the advancement of any additional lands beyond those described as the “allocated flows” on the basis that, after addition of the “allocated” flows, the HPS would be too near to its approved capacity.
During the July 2009 storm event, where the west end of the City experienced extensive basement flooding, storm water entered the sanitary sewer network through various sources which resulted in flows at the HPS of approximately 1150 l/s under surcharge conditions, or 150 l/s above the current approved rated capacity of the HPS. Causes and solutions are currently under review in order to ensure that the increase in flows due to storm water entering the sanitary system are removed or mitigated. It is expected that the action plan will be known in fall 2010.
Expansion of the HPS upgrades beyond the 1077 l/s are envisaged to occur as two projects, as warranted. The first project would see an increase to 1225 l/s and the second to 1400 l/s. The Ministry of the Environment has confirmed that it has no concerns with the City’s intent to proceed with the first project as a Schedule A+ activity under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. This additional capacity is intended to address the gap between the current Environmental Assessment (EA) capacity of 1077 l/s and the flows recorded during the July 2009 event (1150 l/s). The increase in capacity would allow the City to maintain the buffer and prudently allocate capacity in the station for storm flows until other remedial actions are in place.
The second project requires the completion of a Schedule B EA which is currently underway. The findings of the ongoing flooding investigation in this service area will inform the Schedule B EA. The best case scenario would see completion of the Schedule B EA by the end of 2010; however, the EA is subject to requests for a Part II Order for a full Environmental Assessment, which could delay the project by 12 months or more. Construction of the second project would only proceed after satisfying the EA process.
Capacity Assignment
Upon approval and completion of the second project (Schedule B), to bring the HPS to 1400 l/s, the ‘h’ can be lifted from all affected properties. In the interim, any allocation of flow will be assigned once the issuance of a Certificate of Approval for the increase in capacity to 1077 l/s and the first project (Schedule A+), to 1225 l/s, have been approved by the MOE.
The assignment of capacity is expected to follow a ‘first come, first serve’ approach, whereby those development applications that have reasonably advanced such that approval can be granted will be allocated sanitary flows. However to avoid ‘banking’ of capacity, large projects will only be approved based on immediate needs. This process of allocating flow will remain in place until the Schedule B (1400 l/s) project is approved and will be reviewed by staff, in consultation with the applicant, on a case-by-case basis to ensure there is reasonable allocation of sanitary flow reserved for future development pressures.
Planning Fees
The approval of the ‘Lifting Holding By-law’ rests with the Manager, Development Review (Suburban Services) through delegated authority from Council, under the condition that the prescribed pre-conditions have been met. Given that the scope of work required to lift the ‘h’ will be identified, the level of staff review required to process the ‘Lifting Holding By-law’ will be minimal, and thus it is appropriate to waive the $5,016 application fee. Applications to lift the ‘h’ received prior to the approval of the first project to bring capacity to 1225 l/s will be deemed premature and not processed by staff.
Summary
The implementation of a holding zone on the properties identified in Documents 2 and 3 is consistent with the policies of the Province of Ontario, the City’s local planning policies and City Council’s strategic service policies. These three levels of policy pertaining to the delivery of wastewater are consistent with each other and commonly identify the need to integrate land use planning with infrastructure delivery. The utilization of a holding zone to manage wastewater servicing is not only appropriate, but necessary, until such time as downstream capacity required to accommodate future land use decisions is confirmed.
It is therefore the recommendation of this report to establish a holding zone over all “non-allocated” lands identified in Documents 2 and 3. The ‘h’ could be lifted on a case by case basis as certain milestones are achieved, such as upon issuance of a Certificate of Approval for an increase in capacity to 1077 l/s and the approval of the detailed design regarding the first project to bring capacity to 1225 l/s. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that capacity is available. The City will in turn determine whether a buffer of residual capacity to protect against inflow and infiltration during future storm events is available. Should these determinations not be made, the holding zone will restrict development from proceeding to approval and construction; however, the review of planning applications will continue.
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Significant consultation has taken place between City staff and the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry supports the City’s plans for the upgrading of the Hazeldean Pump Station and the use of the holding zone to manage wastewater servicing. The Ward Councillors are aware of this application and the staff recommendation.
One supplementary public information session was held June 1, 2010 at City Hall. Comments from both the public information session and the 28 day circulation period are summarized in Document 15.
A holding zone is an appropriate planning tool to utilize where the planning decisions have been made as to the form of development to take place but infrastructure capacity is not yet present. Given the status of the Hazeldean Pumping Station discussed above, it is anticipated that the overall use of the holding zone will likely withstand any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Consistent with the recommendations, applications to lift the holding zone for individual properties will have to be assessed on a case by case basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications.
Document 1 Hazeldean Pump Station Catchment Area
Document 2 Affected Properties Map – Kanata South
Document 3 Affected Properties Map – Stittsville
Document 4 Hazeldean Pump Station Summary
Documents 5-13 Zoning Maps
Document 14 Allocated Flows Chart
Document 15 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 16 Consultation Details
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
AFFECTED PROPERTIES MAP –
KANATA SOUTH DOCUMENT
2
AFFECTED PROPERTIES MAP – STITTSVILLE DOCUMENT 3
HAZELDEAN PUMP STATION SUMMARY DOCUMENT 4
FLOW
INDICATOR |
RATE OF FLOW (litres per second) |
NOTES |
Existing Flows |
921 l/s |
Based on Monitored Data |
“Allocated Flows” |
988 l/s |
Planning Files which have advanced status |
Current C of A Capacity |
1000 l/s |
MOE Approved[1] |
1999 EA Upset Capacity |
1077 l/s |
1999 EA identified 1077 l/s as HPS capacity. This can be accomplished with changes to the operating parameters of the HPS. MOE have indicated support from an EA point of view to proceed with a C of A application to allow 1077 l/s[2] |
July 2009 Peak Flows |
1150 l/s |
HPS operated at this peak flow under surcharge conditions, due to storm flows entering the sanitary system, where approximately 250 basements were flooded. City is analyzing options to remove potential sources. Findings are expected by end of summer 2010. Findings will inform the Phase 2 EA |
Project 1 |
1225 l/s |
Staged upgrade subject to a Schedule A+ EA |
Project 2 |
1400 l/s |
Staged upgrade subject to a Schedule B EA[3] |
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
5
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
6
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
7
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
8
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
9
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
10
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
11
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
12
PROPOSED ZONING
DOCUMENT
13
ALLOCATED FLOWS CHART[4]
DOCUMENT
14
City File # |
Application Type |
Owner |
D07-16-04-0032 D07-16-07-0011 |
Plan of Subdivision |
1230374 Ontario Inc. |
D07-16-07-0023 |
Plan of Subdivision |
1384841 Ontario Inc. and Monarch Corporation Ltd. |
D07-16-07-0025 |
Plan of Subdivision |
Claridge Homes (Eagleson) Inc. |
D07-16-05-0023 |
Plan of Subdivision |
1590675 Ontario Inc. |
D07-16-1500-SD22 |
Plan of Subdivision |
561650 Ontario Ltd. and Thomas Cavanagh Ltd. |
D07-16-05-0023 |
Plan of Subdivision |
Urbandale Corporation |
D07-12-09-0180 |
Site Plan |
Conseil
des Écoles Publiques de l’est de l’Ontario |
D07-12-10-0044 |
Site Plan |
Ottawa Carleton District School Board |
D07-12-06-0211 |
Site Plan |
ECL General Partner Ltd. |
D07-12-09-0222 |
Site Plan |
City of Ottawa |
D07-12-07-0113 |
Site Plan |
154 Iber Road Corporation |
D07-12-10-0108 |
Site Plan |
743104 Ontario Inc. |
D07-12-07-0236 |
Site Plan |
1384841 Ontario Inc. |
D07-12-07-0281 |
Site Plan |
Orville Station Ltd. and Stittsville Main Street Ltd. |
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 15
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING
1. Rezone the subject properties as shown on Documents 5-13, to add a holding symbol and create conditions for the removal of the holding symbol.
2. Amend Section 239 - Exceptions of By-law 2008-250 to create an exception zone, [xxxx], that includes the following prohibition on use and a condition for removal of a holding symbol:
all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that does not result in increased sanitary sewer flows to
the Hazeldean Pump Station, are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed.
- the holding symbol can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Hazeldean Pump station has the necessary capacity to permit the development of the property.
3. Further amend Section 239 - Exceptions of By-law 2008-250 to create an exception zone, [yyyy], for 1130 Carp Road that includes the following prohibition on use and a condition for removal of a holding symbol:
all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that results in increased sanitary sewer flows to
the Hazeldean Pump Station of no more than 6 litres/second, are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed.
- the holding symbol can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Hazeldean Pump station has the necessary capacity to permit further development of the property above the 6 litres/second threshold.
4. Amend exceptions 1, 217, 225, 226, 227, 284, 308, 392, 395, 465, 468, 474, 992, 1046, 1054, 1066, 1055, 1198, 1199, 1208, 1216, 1253, 1272, 1297, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1463, 1470, 1484, 1487, 1515, 1517, 1519, 1534, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1554, 1555, 1556, 1559, 1560, 1671, 1699 and 1752 to add a prohibition on use and a condition for removal of a holding symbol as follows:
- where a holding symbol has been added to the zone code of the property, because the property is serviced by the Hazeldean Pumping Station, all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that does not result in increased sanitary sewer flows to
the Hazeldean Pump Station, are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed.
- where a holding symbol has been added to the zone code of the property, because the property is serviced by the Hazeldean Pump Station, the holding symbol can only be removed at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Hazeldean Pump station has the necessary capacity to permit the development of the property.
5. Amend exception 1272, for 1122 Carp Road and 6303 Hazeldean Road, to add a prohibition on use and a condition for removal of a holding symbol as follows:
all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that results in increased sanitary sewer flows to
the Hazeldean Pump Station of no more than 6 litres/second, are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed.
- the holding symbol can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Hazeldean Pump station has the necessary capacity to permit further development of the property above the 6 litres/second threshold.
6. Amend exceptions 1444, 1445 and 1446, for 5717, 5653 and 5705 Hazeldean Road, to add a prohibition on use and a condition for removal of a holding symbol as follows:
all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that results in increased sanitary sewer flows to the Hazeldean Pump Station of no more than 5.7 litres per second,
are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed
- the holding symbol
can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the
General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Hazeldean Pump
station has the necessary capacity to permit further development of the
property above the 5.7 litres/second threshold
7. Amend exceptions 1568, 1569 and 1695, for 613 and 5585 Hazeldean Road, to add a prohibition on use and a condition for removal of a holding symbol as follows:
all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that results in increased sanitary sewer flows to the Hazeldean Pump Station of no more than 13.3 litres per second,
are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed
- the holding symbol
can be removed only at such time as it is shown to the satisfaction of the
General Manager of Planning and Growth Management that the Hazeldean Pump
station has the necessary capacity to permit further development of the
property above the 13.3 litres/second threshold
8. Amend exception 1570 for 613 Hazeldean Road to add a prohibition on use and a further condition for removal of a holding symbol as follows:
all permitted uses, except:
(a) those that existed on July 14, 2010, or
(b) any use or development that results in increased sanitary sewer flows to the Hazeldean Pump Station of no more than 13.3 litres per second,
are prohibited until the holding symbol is removed
- the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management is satisfied that the Hazeldean Pump station has the necessary capacity to permit further development of the property above the 13.3 litres/second threshold
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
16
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. A notice of the proposed rezoning was published in the Citizen and Le Droit. In addition, notice by first class mail was provided to the 345 property owners affected by the proposed holding zone. Approximately 40 written comments were received. The most common comment received was a request for further information, specifically details as to the proposed timeframe for upgrades to the Hazeldean Pumping Station so that owners could assess when the holding designation might be lifted, and the criteria to be used by the City in lifting the holding designation on individual properties, such as the amount of capacity utilized in any particular development.
In response to multiple requests for background information and rationale for the holding zone, an information meeting was held on June 1st, 2010 at City Hall. Notice of the meeting was provided to all parties who had previously provided comments or requested notification of future meetings. The following is a summary of questions raised at the meeting and in comments received.
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS/COMMENTS AND ANSWERS
Q: What does this mean for development in the area?
A: Development of an advanced status which is currently allocated to drain to the HPS can proceed. Other lands will be subject to a temporary hold and as capacity is realized, the hold will be lifted where appropriate. Development applications will continue to be reviewed during the temporary hold.
Q: Why is the City utilizing a hold zone in this circumstance?
A: While the HPS has available sanitary capacity, there was a storm event in July 2009 in which storm flows entered the sanitary system, including the HPS. The resultant flows in the HPS exceeded the rated capacity of the HPS. The City is investigating the causes and will make recommendations to remove and mitigate storm flows from entering the HPS. A Class Environmental Assessment is already underway as part of planned upgrades to the HPS. In the meantime, given the July 2009 storm, a temporary hold to manage capacity allocation is prudent. A holding zone is used to ensure that the infrastructure needed to accommodate new development is in place prior to permitting approvals and construction. It is a growth management tool to ensure growth is managed in a responsible manner.
Q: What is the plan to get more capacity at the Hazeldean Pump Station?
A: The City is currently working on upgrades to the station. The City is planning upgrades to occur over the next two years.
Q: What will be the effect on people who bought homes in the area?
A: The City has kept active developers in the area up to date on infrastructure issues. The City has no control over when landowners and builders make commitments to homeowners. There will be no temporary hold on development currently allocated to connect to the system, however, other lands subject to the holding zone will be temporarily placed on hold and released in stages as capacity is realized
Q: What does the Ministry of the Environment say about the City’s plans?
A: The City has consulted with the Ministry and is working with Ministry on the planned upgrades. The Ministry has advised that they have no concerns with the City’s proposed approach for meeting Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements for the HPS upgrades.
Q: When will the holding zone take effect?
A: A report recommending the hold will be brought before the Planning and Environment Committee on June 22nd, 2010 and to Council on July 14th, 2010. If approved, it will take effect immediately. The hold is subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Q: What does the holding zone mean?
A: The holding zone means that before connections to the sewer system can be made for new development, City staff will review the predicted flows and capacity and determine if the connection should be allowed to proceed. The evaluation would be conducted as part of the review of a development application, and the holding zone would be lifted where appropriate.
Q: Why wasn’t capacity added earlier?
A: There is approximately two years of capacity available, and an ability to add more capacity; however, as a result of the July 2009 peak flows, there is need to ensure that the storm flows are removed or mitigated. Infrastructure needs are delivered on an as-needed basis. The need for increased future capacity was identified and projects to increase capacity were approved last year. The City is moving forward on these planned upgrades.
Q: Why is my property allowed to connect and not my neighbours?
A: All properties currently approved to connect to the system can connect. These are projects in an advanced stage of development and capacity at the station has been allocated to these projects. As capacity at the station is expanded, future flows will be allocated on the basis of those projects that have all of the requisite approvals in place on a first come, first served basis.
Q: Why can’t the Fernbank lands connect now?
A: Development in this area is not at an advanced stage. Flow capacity at the station has not been allocated to Fernbank development projects. Like all project in this stage of readiness, they are subject to a hold until works at the station to add capacity are complete.
Q: What is the process for the Fernbank lands?
A: The Official Plan amendment for the Fernbank lands is still before the Ontario Municipal Board. By virtue of a previous Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, sanitary capacity at the Hazeldean Pump Station (HPS) for the Fernbank lands is tied to the completion of the Environmental Assessment Process for the HPS. All planning and development work in the area can continue. However, works at the station to expand capacity at the pumping station must be completed before approvals are given.
Q: Why are properties which do not have connections to the City’s public sanitary system included in the holding zone?
A: Although a parcel of land that is currently serviced by private services may receive the ‘h’, the text of the Zoning By-law will ensure the holding zone is applicable to all permitted uses within the effected zone, except those uses that existed prior to enactment of the Zoning By-law and any development that does not result in increased sanitary sewer flows to the Hazeldean Pumping Station.
C: Some sites affected by the Holding Zone are occupied by recently constructed residential or commercial projects. We are concerned that purchasers may misunderstand the implications of the holding zone. It must be made clear to all prospective purchasers that the holding provision does not prevent the construction and sale of these developments, nor does it prevent the subsequent resale of any of the units.
A: The holding zone will have no impact on recently constructed
developments. Servicing capacity at the station has been allocated to these
projects. The holding
provision will be clear that the required upgrades are to accommodate
new development, and does not prevent the construction and sale of developments with
allocated flow, nor does it prevent the subsequent resale of any of the units.
C: When we developed our property, the City imposed a range of fees and levies, many of which to cover infrastructure costs. We have also paid millions of dollars in property taxes to the City over the years. I cannot think of any extraordinary demands we will impose on the system. It appears that the capacity problems were foreseeable and could have been avoided. The appropriate course of action is to suspend new construction until the infrastructure can be upgraded.
A: The need for increased future capacity was identified and projects to increase capacity were approved last year. The capacity issue has been dealt with as soon as it was identified, and the upgrades are part of the plan to manage growth responsibly. The City is moving forward on these planned upgrades in an expeditious manner.
C: As owners of an industrial building, we were contemplating constructing an addition in the near future. The proposed holding zone means we are at risk of outgrowing our facility with no option for expansion. Warehouse additions with no demand for additional services should not affect the pumping station, and should be exempt from the hold.
A: Before connections to the sewer system can be made for new development, staff will review the predicted flows and capacity and determine if the connection should be allowed to proceed. Where appropriate, the holding zone will be lifted.
Q: Why are some of the large parcels of land north of Hazeldean Road not affected by the Holding Zone?
A: The lands north of Hazeldean Road will be subject to the holding zone as well but portions of the developments that have been approved and have been allocated flows at the Hazeldean Pumping Station and can proceed.
C: We preconsulted with the City in March 2010 regarding a new commercial development, and were not advised of any servicing capacity issues. Due to commitments made as a result of that meeting, the delay caused by the holding zone will have a significant financial impact. The project should be considered to be at an advanced stage of development.
A: There are certain projects in an advanced stage of development,
which have capacity allocated at the pumping station. These projects have
already received Site Plan Control Approval. As capacity at the station is
expanded, future flows will be allocated on the basis of those projects that
have all of the requisite approvals in place on a first come, first served
basis.
C: Some very small parcels are included in the proposed holding designation. The capacity utilization of these parcels is minimal and doesn’t seem to justify their inclusion in the holding designation. Owners may want to expand or replace the building with a larger one.
A: Initially all property
owners are treated in a consistent manner, by having the holding zone applied
regardless of property size. Many small sites could have the cumulative impact
of a large site. Depending on the criteria established and timing and
availability of capacity after initial upgrades to Hazeldean Pumping Station, parcel size and advanced planning status may
be a consideration for where lifting of the “h” occurs by the City.
Q: Will the Holding Zone impact the sale of my property by making it difficult to sell?
A: The holding zone has no adverse legal implication regarding the sale of properties. As indicated within the text of the report, those uses that existed prior to June 22, 2010 remain legally permitted uses. Furthermore new development that does not result in increased sanitary sewer flows to the Hazeldean Pumping Station would also be permitted.
Q: How will additional capacity be allocated, once it becomes
available?
A: Upon approval and completion of Project 2 (1400 l/s), the ‘h’ can be lifted from all affected properties. In the interim, any allocation of flow will be assigned once the issuance of a Certificate of Approval for the increase in capacity to 1077 l/s and the detailed design of the first project (Schedule A+), to bring capacity to 1225 l/s, has been approved. The assignment of capacity is expected to follow a ‘first come, first serve’ approach, whereby those development applications that have reasonably advanced such that approval can be granted will be allocated sanitary flows.
Q: What if one large development attempts to claim most of the available allocation, and others can’t proceed?
A: In order to avoid ‘banking’ of capacity, large projects will only be approved based on immediate needs. This process of allocating flow will remain in place until the Schedule B (1400 l/s) project is approved and will be reviewed by staff, in consultation with the applicant, on a case-by-case basis to ensure there is reasonable allocation of sanitary flow reserved for future development pressures.
Q: What is the mechanism for lifting of the Holding Zone?
A: The ‘h’ could be lifted on a case
by case basis as certain milestones are achieved, such as issuance of a Certificate
of Approval for an increase in capacity to 1077 l/s and the approval of the
detailed design to bring capacity to 1225 l/s has been approved. It will be the responsibility of the
applicant to demonstrate that capacity is available. The City will in turn
determine whether buffer of residual capacity to protect against inflow and
infiltration during future storm events is reasonable.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
The Stittsville Village Association (SVA) expressed their full support for the proposed Holding Zone and wishes to see clear exception criteria outlined for releasing the Holding Zone (‘h’) on a case by case basis.
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0108 Stittsville
(6) / Kanata South (23)
(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Committee received
the following correspondence with respect to this item:
·
Comments dated 22 June 2010 from Lloyd Hope, with
respect to 5271 Richmond Road
·
Letter dated 21 June 2010 from Miguel Tremblay for Dharma
Developments: 1491 / 1493 Stittsville Main Street
·
Letter dated 20 June 2010 from Faith Blacquiere
·
E-mail dated 20 June 2010 from Ted Cooper
·
Letter dated 21 June 2010 from Kathleen Willis for North
American (Goulbourn) Corporation
·
E-mails dated June 4 and 17 from Kevin Yemm for
Richcraft
·
Letter dated 6 June 2010 from Beth Henderson for Riotrin
Properties (Hazeldean) Inc.
·
Letter dated 27 May 2010 from Janet Bradley, Borden,
Ladner, Gervais, for 743104 Ontario Inc.
·
Letter dated 21 May 2010 from Habib Chabour, 1763295
Ontario Inc.
Michael Wildman,
Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services, presented staff’s
recommendations with respect to the Hazeldean Pump Station Holding Zone. He was accompanied by Guy Bourgon, Program
Manager, Development Review (Suburban Southeast) and Don Herweyer, Program
Manager, Development Review (Suburban West.)
The Chair began by
noting that the proposed Holding Zone related to the City’s ability, through
the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to proceed to upgrade the Hazeldean Pump
Station using a Class A+ Environmental Assessment (EA) process. He noted the Holding Zone was part of an
agreement that the City reached with the MOE to allow upgrades to proceed, and
suggested that if the City did not go forward with the holding zones on the
recommended properties, the City would likely be required to go back through a
schedule B EA process
Mr. Wildman agreed
with the Chair’s assessment, noting that after many months of working with
Ministry on finding the path forward for the EA an understanding was reached
with the Ministry that the Ministry would support a Schedule A+ EA for the
first project upgrade, on the understanding that the City would pass a holding
designation and that development would be controlled to a certain flow rate
until the full upgrades were complete.
The Chair suggested that if Committee and Council were to remove
properties from the holding could jeopardize the City’s ability to proceed
under the A+ scenario. Mr Wildman
agreed.
In response to
questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Wildman suggested that it Committee were
to remove properties from the Holding Zone, the Ministry would have pause for
reflection on their agreement with the City and predicted, which could lengthen
the process and delay the establishment of the much-needed buffer to help
prevent against flooding such that which took place in July 2009.
Mr. Wildman noted
that in the preceding nine months the City had been working on a path forward
to provide for a buffer to help prevent flooding such as that experienced by
residents in July 2009. He explained that what was recommended was a temporary
holding (“h”) designation applied over an area of approximately 3000 hectares
and approximately 360 very diverse properties.
He suggested staff had been consistent in its approach and analysis in
determining the best path forward for each property, although each property had
specific differences.
Mr. Wildman
predicted that some property owners would raise the argument that their
particular property only a small flow, and therefore should be allowed to
proceed. He cautioned against removing
such properties from the holding designation, as they could collectively result
in a problematic flow volume. He
predicted other owners would argue that their lands did not have to go to the
Hazeldean Pump Station, and therefore should be removed from the holding
zone. He explained that those properties
that could go to the Hazeldean Pump Station, even if only on a temporary basis,
were recommended to be included in the holding zone, as it was common practice
for interim measures to be employed, and these could result in those properties
proposing to connect to the Hazeldean Pump station.
Mr. Wildman then
proceeded with a detailed PowerPoint presentation to review staff’s report and
recommendations, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to
questions from Councillors Feltmate, Qadri and Monette, staff provided the
following additional information:
·
Infrastructure Services staff has been actively
involved in tracing all the sources they could find of the storm inflow that
got into the sanitary system in July 2009, and are looking at many measures
that would provide for its removal.
These measures could range from the use of inlet control devices to upgrades
to storm sewers themselves.
·
Even though they would be providing for additional
capacity at the Hazeldean Pump Station, they would also be removing storm flows
through those other measures, further increasing the buffer against peak flows
experienced during the July 2009 storm event.
·
Staff would begin lifting the Holding Zone on a
case-by-case basis once the Certificate of Approval was in place for the 1225
l/s project upgrade and the pump in place to provide the needed capacity.
·
Development would be limited to 1077 l/s until the
ultimate project upgrade of 1400 l/s was in place.
·
To lift the holding provision, the General Manager,
with the concurrence of the Ward Councillor, would authorize listing of a By-law
on the City Council agenda to lift the Holding provision off a particular
property. There would not be a report to
Committee and Council.
·
Staff’s recommended approach is to allocate capacity
on a first come first serve basis, as applications advance through the planning
process. Commercial and Industrial properties would not be treated with a
higher priority.
·
When asked to Comment on why similar measures were
not undertaken after the July 2006 flooding in Orléans, Mr. Wildman noted he
was not the lead on that file. He
indicated that, in the case of the west end flooding it was clear that the
flows in the pump station exceeded the rated capacity and staff had to move
forward with the Ministry to develop a go-forward plan to increase the capacity
above the peak flows.
·
With respect to the Carp River, Mr. Wildman noted
that the work underway by Infrastructure Services examined all potential
sources of the flooding, and if the Carp River was found to be a source, it
would be looked at for mitigation measures.
·
Staff is unable to indicate precisely how many years
of development would be guaranteed by the ultimate 1400l/s of flow provided by
the Hazeldean Pump station upgrades.
Although they are absorbing capacity at a rate of approx 44 l/s per
year, the equation is complicated by the fact that the Kanata Pump Station, to
be commissioned around 2016, will divert some of the flows. Staff is monitoring the capacity and a
go-forward plan will ensure the capacity is available when needed and the
upgrades occur when needed.
·
Staff intends to continue reviewing planning
applications throughout the temporary hold period, and will advance the
planning applications as far as possible, although certain files which do not
currently have allocated flows will not receive final approval until the 1225l/s
upgrade is in place. Staff expects to be able to start lifting the “h” in early
2011.
·
Holding will be lifted on a first come first serve
basis, and this order will not be affected by the amount of flow contributed by
a particular property. Staff will follow
a “no banking” policy and thus will not be allocating large amounts of
capacity.
·
Staff is undertaking a system-wide review of west
end sanitary network, under the direction of Roman Diduch, Program Manager of
Infrastructure Policy, that will address the issue of how the downstream
pumping stations are and will function, which would inform the Schedule B EA
for the 1400 l/s upgrade.
·
Staff is
generally confident that they are on track with scheduling pump station
upgrades relative to growth pressures.
In the case of the Hazeldean Pump Station, the major storm event was a
complicating factor. Staff continues to
monitor and track the growth relative the capacity in the pump stations.
Councillor Qadri
made the following direction to staff:
DIRECTION TO STAFF:
That the results of staff’s system-wide
sanitary study come back to Planning and Environment Committee for information.
Committee then
heard from the following Public Delegations:
Mr. Yemm, Richcraft Homes Ltd, spoke in opposition to the staff
recommendations. Specifically, he
expressed opposition to parcels outside of the Hazeldean Pump Station Service
Area being included in the draft by-law, which included the land owned by
Richcraft. He raised the following
objections:
·
The
holding zone concerns land serviced by the Hazeldean Pump Station, while
Richcraft’s parcel of land is to be serviced by the Kanata West Pump Station
·
There
are several existing mechanisms for the City to impose restrictions on
development
·
The
Holding Zone would result in unnecessary additional administration and costs
·
While
the current staff and Council understand the context of the holding zone and
the development climate, The Holding Zone could result in undue prejudice from
future councils and community groups.
In conclusion, Mr. Yemm recommended that the
Holding Zone exclude lands designed to drain to other pumping stations, and
that the Richcraft lands be removed from the proposed draft zoning by-law
amendment. A copy of Mr. Yemm’s detailed
PowerPoint Presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Wildman spoke to the issue of why the
Richcraft lands were included in the holding zone. He reiterated that the zone included some
parcels that were not ultimately intended to go to the Hazeldean pumping
station, but it is common practice for interim measures to be requested to
allow for servicing to proceed. In this
case staff believed there was a possibility that the Richcraft lands could proceed
to the Hazeldean pump station on an interim basis. Staff felt their position was conservative
and the right thing to do.
Councillor Feltmate wondered if there was the
opportunity to put the holding zone on each individual property as they came
through the development process. Mr.
Marc indicated that, while that was technically possible to do, staff’s approach
had been to do a comprehensive holding zone for all the areas that discharge
into the Hazeldean Pump Station in order to assure the Ministry of the capacity
buffer. Mr. Wildman confirmed that
staff’s approach, and the agreement with the ministry, as intended to assure
the highest level of protection for residents.
In response to further questions from
Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Wildman clarified that the Fernbank Lands had not been
included in the Holding Zone. Mr. Marc
explained that, due to appeals to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 77, the OP
status of the Fernbank lands had been in question until very recently. He further explained that the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB) had, the previous week, dismissed the main appeal to OPA
77, and thus the OP would come into force.
He indicated that staff would now be coming forward with a
recommendation to impose a similar holding zone on the Fernbank Lands. He cautioned that Committee should not seek
to impose such a holding zone immediately, as it would give rise to questions
of notice.
Faith Blacquiere, resident of Glen Cairn, noted that she had
been investigating the flooding that had occurred in July 2009, and provided a
detailed analysis of the issues related to the Hazeldean Pump Station
reliability, capacity and proposed upgrades.
She did so by means of a detailed PowerPoint presentation, a copy of
which is held on file with the City Clerk.
While she was supportive of the holding zone, she had several comments,
concerns and recommendations with respect to the staff report. She made the following recommendations to
Committee:
·
Implement
the Holding Zone for the whole sewershed, including the Fernbank Lands.
·
Do not allocate
more capacity until the overflow is in place.
·
Expand
the Schedule B project to a Condition and Capacity assessment.
·
Treat
the situation as an emergency, as it is an emergency for both residents and the
developers
·
Brainstorm
possible emergency alternatives and technologies with the Ministry and consider
Emergency Standby Portable Pumping Alternatives.
·
Developers
should review construction practices.
·
The City
should establish a water reduction program for the west end for extreme wet
weather
·
The City
should review policies which resulted in capacity not meeting growth needs and
prevent basement flooding
·
The City
should identify and take action on all infrastructure upgrades affecting
existing clients where development has been delayed
·
If there
is another flood, the consultant should report directly to Council, and start
immediately
In conclusion, Ms. Blacquiere suggested the
other thing Council should do was pray, as this was what the residents of Glen
Cairn must do whenever it rains.
Councillor Feltmate
thanked Ms. Blacquiere for all the work she had done over the preceding year,
and suggested on the of the reasons the City knew as much as it did was as a
result of the documentation Ms. Blacquiere had compiled. In response to questions from the Councillor,
Ms. Blacquiere elaborated on the portable pumping and emergency technologies
recommended in her submission. She noted
that the 1999 study identified that there had been a submersible pump in the
inlet manhole. She suggested if the
station had total failure, it would be possible to bring in trucks to pump out
the station and provide emergency service.
She noted there were technologies that were being approved for some
pumping stations to provide temporary solutions in an emergency, and suggested
the City needed to investigate such emergency alternatives. Mr. Wildman explained that infrastructure
services had done exhaustive research and investigation of factors related to
the 2009 flood, and they are underway with the Schedule B upgrade. If measures
such as those identified by the delegation were required, they would be
implemented. He suggested that before
implementing any such measures, the City needed to complete a comprehensive
investigation of the causes of the flooding and gain a thorough understanding
of how to address them through both mitigation measures and the upgrade of the
pump station.
With respect to the
existing emergency measures in the event of a pump station failure, Dixon Weir,
General Manager of Environmental Services, explained that this and other pump
stations had a series of redundancies, and are designed to have emergency back-up
power, communication, pumping et cetera to ensure service reliability. Councillor Feltmate wondered if there were
short-term solutions to prevent the water backing up into people’s homes, as
occurred in July 2009. Alain Gonthier,
Manager of Asset Management, noted there were a number of measures that have
been implemented with the aim of keeping storm water out of the sanitary sewer
system. He suggested increasing the
pumping capacity to 1225l/s was one of the interim measures while the City
undertakes the longer-term works. With
respect to the 1999 study, he noted that since then there has been an upgrade
to the Hazeldean Pump Station and additional capacity provided.
In response to
questions from Councillor Feltmate with respect to the issue of allocating
capacity, Mr. Wildman indicated that it was not the usual practice to allocate
more than the current capacity to developers.
The existing and allocated flows are still below the rated capacity of
the pump station. On the issue of one
developer selling capacity to another, Mr. Wildman explained that this was not
permitted for City-owned pump stations.
For private pump stations, while it is difficult to for the City to
control sale of capacity; the City does regulate the output from the private
pump station, which is not allowed to exceed the rated capacity.
Douglas Kelly,
Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of Cavanagh and 1384341 Ontario Ltd. He noted those property owners had registered
plans of subdivision, and had been allocated some capacity. He indicated that they were pleased in recent
months with the work staff had done with the Ministry to reach an arrangement
that affords those properties some capacity.
He expressed concern with respect to the restrictions in the west end on
those lots available for development, and supported future efforts of staff to
work with the ministry to address that problem.
Mr. Kelly also
spoke on behalf of Chenier, owners of a property located in Cypress Gardens
Phase Three in Stittsville. He noted, at
the time of pre-consultation in 2005, it was proposed the property would be
acquired by the City as an Urban Natural Feature; however, the owners have not
received an offer from the City to purchase the land, and now intend to proceed
with the development of the land, which is designated General Urban Area. He hoped that staff would proceed to process
their application in anticipation that the problems with the pump station would
be solved.
Councillor Qadri
asked staff to comment on the Chenier property and the landowner’s request to
have the City purchase the property. Mr.
Wildman indicated that would require some further discussion.
Alan Cohen, Soloway
Wright, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. He was accompanied by Sue Murphy, Mattamy
Homes, He spoke with respect to how the proposal would impact the Mattamy
Fairwinds development. He acknowledged
that this was a very serious issue, citing the concerns of the Glen Cairn
residents with respect to flooding. He
noted there were 800 homes built and occupied in Fairwinds and the remaining
600 units had been draft plan approved since 2006 and 2007. He suggested draft plan approval signified
that there was sufficient capacity, noting there was no special condition in
the draft plan approval related to the pumping station. He noted the lands were
then zoned and were ready for development.
Mr. Cohen suggested
the proposed holding zone amounted to a down-zoning of his client’s
property. He noted that the Kanata West
environmental EAs and third party review were not an impediment to the
development of his client’s lands, and the only impediment would be the
proposed holding zone. He expressed
concern that the actual capacity was not clear, and indicated that he did not
accept the figures provided by staff.
Also, he expressed that they had no confidence in the manner in which
capacity would subsequently be allocated.
Finally, he submitted that his client’s lands met the definition of
allocation, and questioned why they were not among those being given immediate
allocation.
Mr. Cohen suggested
the holding zone meant that the City would forego millions of dollars in
development charges and taxes, the community could not be completed, and 600
families would be prevented from moving into their new homes. In conclusion, he encouraged Committee to not
put the holding designation on his client’s lands, but if they did, to make it
clear that they were among the lands to go with allocation.
Mr. Wildman noted
that the Mattamy lands were part of the broader area subject to the master
servicing studies for the area, and the development is currently serviced by a
temporary pump station with a limited capacity. While the master studies for
the area indicate that there could be a path forward to see those lands move,
this work has yet to be done. As such,
staff feels the property should be subject to the holding zone.
Ursula Melinz,
Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of Urbandale. She
spoke in opposition to the proposed holding zone, specifically with respect to
Urbandale’s land located at 310 Stonehaven Drive. She noted the property was well into the
development process, with applications submitted as early as 2005 for the last
phase of development in the Glen Cairn community. She noted the lands had been through the
development review process, had been to the OMB, and Urbandale was now in the
position where there were trying to finalize development and seek
allocation. She indicated that they
would be working with staff seeking part of the allocation. In response to questions from the Chair, Ms.
Melinz confirmed that 310 Stonehaven Drive was not on the allocated flow list,
while Urbandale’s Bridlewood Phase 3 E, located further west on Stonehaven
Drive, was on the allocated flow list and was currently under
construction. She noted the document
marked as Area B of Document 9 to the staff report was a City-owned woodlot
formerly belonging to Urbandale.
Emma Blanchard,
Borden, Ladner, Gervais, spoke on behalf of 743104 Ontario Inc., owners of the
property located at 5924 Hazeldean Road.
She spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation with respect to that
property. She noted that the property in
question had received site plan approval and a site plan agreement was
negotiated and executed by the City in March 2010 and registered on title. She indicated that during the Site Plan
process there had been no discussion of the possibility of a holding zone, nor
any discussion of capacity as being an issue.
She noted her client had paid all the required performance securities,
park fees and was ready to develop the building. She submitted that, because the property was
at an advanced stage of development, it should receive allocation and the
holding zone was inappropriate.
Mr. Wildman noted
that there were indeed some properties subject to the holding zone that were in
an advance planning stage, such as 5924 Hazeldean Road, and these would be
prevented from proceeding until the capacity issues were addressed. This development had a condition requiring
that the upgrades be in place before proceeding. He surmised that, under the
recommended first come first served allocation policy, this would likely be one
of the first in line due to the agreements in place.
Ms. Blanchard also
spoke on behalf of ECL Developments Ltd. (Sobeys,) owners of 6303
Hazeldean Road/ 1122 and 1130 Carp Road.
With respect to this property, she indicated that her clients had been
allocated capacity were in agreement with the arrangement that had been
discussed with staff. However, she indicated
her client’s view that, given the allocated capacity reflects the site plan,
there would be no need to impose the H on the property.
Chris Leblanc spoke in
opposition to the proposed holding zone on the Mattamy’s Fairwinds development
Phase 5A. He noted that he was a current
resident of Fairwinds Phase 1, and in 2009 had purchased a home in Phase
5A. He noted that there had been delays
preventing that development from proceeding, and suggested the proposed holding
zone would add to the delays that he and other home purchasers were
experiencing. He expressed concern that
if an H was placed on the property, they would not get the necessary capacity
at their interim pump station to allow them to proceed.
Mr. Wildman
explained that the temporary pump station referenced by the delegation had met
its capacity in terms of commitments, and thus staff was recommending the lands
be included in the holding zone.
In response to
questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Wildman confirmed that the delays to Mattamy
Fairwinds Phase 5 were not all related to the issue of pump station capacity.
In addition to the issue of the Hazeldean Pump Station, which arose from the
July 2009 Flooding Event, the lands in Kanata West that ultimately drained into
the Carp River had also been subject to much scrutiny, which contributed to the
delays for the property in question.
In
response to questions from Councillor Doucet, with respect to storm sewers, and
how storm water had found its way into the sanitary system after the major rain
event of July 2009, Mr. Wildman noted that some of the storm sewers in question
were over 30 years old and the design standards of the day were different. The
storm sewers put in place since the new City standards have been in place have
performed well and performed as intended to limit flooding. Mr. Wildman suggested that this was dependant
on the area in question. He explained
that as development moved into flatter lands where geotechnical restrictions do
not allow for grade increases, pumping stations could be necessary. He agreed
that caution was always in order when designing these systems and suggested recent
systems were performing well as a result of that caution.
In
response to questions from Councillor Monette with respect to what alternative solution there was
instead of holding zones, Mr. Wildman suggested the alternative would be to do
a full Schedule B EA, and cautioned that delays could result if that EA were to
be subject to any Part 2 Order. As such,
staff felt the proposed Schedule A+ EA and holding zone is the fastest path
forward, in the best interests of the public, to ensure a buffer above the peak
flows that have been experienced. Mr.
Marc further explained that when there is a capacity issue with respect to
infrastructure, the only tool the municipality has is to impose the holding
zone in order to allow the necessary improvements to infrastructure to be made
so that the development can proceed. He
suggested the recommended holding zone would, in effect, allow the municipality
to deal with the issue on a case by case basis.
Councillor Hunter
suggested that there were other reasons for the 2009 Glen Cairn flooding, aside
from the Hazeldean pumping station, given that
other areas served by the same pumping station did not have sanitary
sewer problems. These reasons could
include pipe capacity and problems related to the standards under which the
community was developed. He suggested it
was wrong to make developers that are building communities to appropriate
standards, and homeowners, wait in line because of a problem that was probably
caused by the Ministry of Housing decades ago.
The Councillor
noted the City had for the past 20 years been adding communities to the various
pumping stations and there had always been plenty of capacity. He suggested putting a hold on development
was a kneejerk reaction to the 2009 storm, which affects developers and the
area’s potential homeowners. He noted
there was sufficient capacity except during a big storm, and suggested that for
the storm situation the solution was to stop the storm water infiltration, not
stop the development.
Councillor Feltmate
spoke to the flooding that had occurred in Glen Cairn in July 2009. She acknowledged that there were a number of
reasons it had occurred, but emphasized that the design of the pump station was
one of those reasons. She noted that because the capacity was insufficient for
the section going to Glen Cairn in a storm, there was nowhere for it to
overflow other than residents’ basements.
She indicated her support for the holding zone, and maintained that new
homes should not expect to feed into the system, when existing homeowners have
to pay the price. She suggested staff
was doing the best they could to protect the current residents, while allowing
the process with the Ministry to move forward more quickly with the upgrades to
provide the required capacity, and begin allocating on a case by case
basis. She further suggested that as
infrastructure ages and demonstrates that it does not meet capacity the City
needs to move forward with getting it fixed sooner and not delaying it to avoid
tax increases. In conclusion, she
encouraged Committee and Council to vote in favour of the holding zone.
Councillor Qadri
spoke in support of the holding zone, suggesting it was a thoughtful pause in
the development of the west end communities.
He acknowledged that there were carious issues related to water flow in
the area in question, and indicated that he felt sympathy for the homebuyers
who would have to wait to move in.
However, he felt this was an opportunity to correct some of the problems
for the benefit of those future residents.
With respect to the
flooding of July 2009, he suggested the Carp River third party review was one
piece of the puzzle, this was another, and the full picture would come forward
when the report came forward from staff examining what exactly happened in that
flood and what corrective measures would be taken going forward.
With respect to the
developers, he noted that this report would not stop the planning process, and
further noted that many of the development were not at the stage where they
were even ready for building permits.
Referencing the ECL proposal, which was already worked through with
staff, he noted staff was working to fairly allocate capacity based on phases
of that development. He praised staff
for standing up and saying we need to review the infrastructure before
proceeding. In conclusion, he asked
Committee to support the staff recommendations.
Committee then
approved the report recommendations, as presented.
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve:
1.
An
amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of properties
within the Hazeldean Pump Station Sewershed such that a holding zone (h) is
added to the existing zones, as illustrated in Documents 5 to 13 and detailed
in Document 14.
2.
That staff proceed with application for
Certificate of Approval in accordance with the 1999 Region of Ottawa-Carleton
Hazeldean Sewage Pumping Station Capacity Expansion Schedule B – Class
Environmental Assessment to increase the capacity of the HPS to 1077 l/s.
3.
That, consistent with existing delegated
authority, the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management be directed to
list by-laws providing for the lifting of the ‘h’ on a case by case basis upon
confirmation that capacity is available.
4.
That the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management be given authorization to waive the planning fees, identified in the
Planning Fee By-law (2010-110), for a ‘Lifting Holding By-law’ application
related to the subject ‘h’.
5.
That the General Manager, Planning and Growth
Management be directed to list a by-law for the lifting of the ‘h’ related to
sanitary sewer capacity off of all properties once the Certificate of Approval
for the Schedule A+ project to bring capacity to 1225 l/s has been issued and
the Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment for the project to bring capacity
to 1400 l/s is complete.
CARRIED
DIRECTION TO STAFF:
That the results of staff’s system-wide sanitary study come back to
Planning and Environment Committee for information.
[1] It is estimated that sanitary sewage is consumed at a rate of approximately 44 l/s/year based on historical data. For illustration purposes only, based on consumption rates, there would be approximately 18 to 24 months of capacity remaining in the HPS if allowed to consume up to the current rated capacity of 1000 l/s.
[2] For illustration purposes only, this would provide an additional 77 l/s of capacity and based on consumption rates would provide slightly less than an additional 24 months of capacity/buffer (total of approximately 36 to 48 months).
[3] EA is targeting the end of 2010 for completion, subject to Part 2 Orders, which could delay completion of the upgrade 12 months or more.
[4] Note: Each property identified may not have flows allocated such that the entire development can be fully constructed